EPA Microbiologist Dr. David Lewis Wrote the Book on Research Misconduct - Then Throws the Book at Brian Deer
On April 29, Teri Arranga conducted a gripping interview with Dr. David
Lewis on her radio show, Autism One: A Conversation of Hope. The show opened with Dr. Lewis speaking about his soon-to-be-released book, Science for Sale.
Dr. Lewis was the only EPA scientist to ever be lead author of articles published in Nature and Lancet. In 2008 and 2011, Nature reported on a lawsuit he filed against EPA scientists for covering up problems with chemicals in organic fertilizers (biosolids) linked to autism, and his investigations into fraud charges leveled against Dr. Andrew Wakefield. Listen to Dr. Lewis' interview or read the transcript of it below to learn what he discovered while pouring through the documents related to the baseless charges against Dr. Wakefield. Dr. Lewis is a renowned environmental scientist who is sponsored by Focus Autism.
Dr. Lewis will be giving a presentation about his new book Science for Sale: How the US Government Uses Powerful Corporations and Leading Universities to Support Government Policies, Silence Top Scientists, Jeopardize Our Health, and Protect Corporate Profits at the AutismOne Conference in Chicago, Friday, May 23 at 1 pm CT.
TRANSCRIPT OF INTERVIEW
Teri Arranga: Dr. David Lewis is an internationally recognized research microbiologist whose work in public health and environmental issues as a senior-level Research Microbiologist in EPA's Office of Research & Development, and member of the Graduate Faculty of the University of Georgia has been reported in numerous news articles and documentaries from Time Magazine and Reader's Digest to National Geographic. He is the only EPA scientist to publish first-authored articles in Nature, Lancet, and Nature Medicine.
Read the full article at A Shot of Truth.
Carol,
That seems to be Deer's usual level of integrity. The great establisment gamble to put someone out there to make the lies they'd never dare to, and then protect him. What a cringe-worthy object.
Posted by: Mercky Business | June 03, 2014 at 10:51 AM
Of course, I started _Science for Sale_ at the Brian Deer chapter. As part of his attack on Dr. Lewis, Deer re-published a withdrawn sewage-sludge industry white paper attacking Dr. Lewis. When confronted by Dr. Lewis's lawyer, Deer responded that the paper was not actually available on briandeer.com because of a typo in the file suffix:
"The link(s) to which you refer," Deer wrote, "aren't operative, and if they were ever operative (and I don't think they were), they didn't link to anything that wasn't posted many years ago, and hence isn't actionable under the relevant limitations statute....However, as I say, the links are dead. I have records showing that they were dead a long time ago, if not always. If you look at the source code carefully, you will see that the 'f' has been omitted from 'pdf'. Thus the links wouldn't have worked."
But apparently Dr. Lewis and his attorneys have been shadowing Deer's website for years and discovered that the "typo" was introduced into the filename shortly before Deer emailed Dr. Lewis's attorney.
Cue the sad trombone.
Posted by: Carol | June 02, 2014 at 05:40 PM
Hi Roger
I have never thought that this was a very acceptable line. Wakefield's name is only tainted because he has been massively lied about and it is important to stand up for him for that very reason too. There is plenty beyond Wakefield's important contribution even as things stand but we must also fight scientific fascism. We will not gain by letting the victimisation of Wakefield go: and behind Wakefield are the families that he tried to help, whose interests have been lied about and buried as well. Let us remember the reason that the British government went after Wakefield and colleagues was because they listened to the parents, and this could not be allowed to happen.
John
Posted by: John Stone | May 17, 2014 at 05:18 PM
As much as parents admire Dr.Wakefield for being the canary in the coal mine as far as vaccine damage is concerned,I do not believe he will personally ever be vindicated.Wakefield's name is too tainted.It is going to take somebody else,with an even bigger study to prove this.Just because your local pediatrician believes twenty or thirty vaccines in very young children is perfectly fine.It doesn't mean more doctors,and more people in the drug companies are not aware of this.More than you might think.When this thing finally breaks,it's going to be huge.
Posted by: Roger Kulp | May 17, 2014 at 04:41 PM
Exactly Benedetta
As happens when a real health crisis is crashing all around them.
1. They on the very first instance shall wail a prayer to Messiah Brian Deer.
2. Shall find the doctor responsible for alerting them to the health scare.
3. Then will discredit the doctor and have his medical qualies removed.
4. Hopefully hanging him out to dry as an example.
5. Kill all hope for the ill.
6. Pharma trolls rejoice.
7. Permanently the status Quo remains the same until the shill Brian Deer is hung out to dry by Pharma (coming to a town near you soon).
MMR RIP
Fièvre smile and be happy!
Posted by: Angus Files | May 17, 2014 at 01:45 PM
Fièvre; Sorry, I did not mean to sound mean.
Posted by: Benedetta | May 17, 2014 at 01:26 PM
to Benedetta : I want to make it clear that my intention when refering to the pubmed article on Clinical case reporting was simply in accordance with its conclusion : " be a stimulus to the continuing debate in the medical community on the value of case reporting."
The small number of cases covered in the 1998 Wakefield study is often considered an original sin. It is not my opinion. I just wanted to reframe this question.
(I am glad you worry about my health)
Posted by: Fièvre | May 17, 2014 at 12:58 PM
Fièvre;
I am not sure where you are going with your comments.
But as for case studies giving way to larger more -- well
Your pubmed reference - that case studies might not be very important, followed by a of obviating - (when you have to do a lot of talking - it could be you are grasping at every straw on your way down to the bottom.
Common sense - which is in short supply these days -- you should just know that when problems arises - that needs further study -were people are needing help - medicine should be involved with real human beings - with real lives, with real problems --- thus - small case studies.
People cannot be treated as just numbers either.
Let us see how you feel when your time comes and you have a health crisis.
Posted by: Benedetta | May 17, 2014 at 10:49 AM
To John Fryer : In your comment ( May 17, 2014 at 05:16 AM )you mentionned a case study by Halstead SB on rubella.
I guess you refered to this one from 1971 : Failure to Transmit Rubella Virus Vaccine A Close-Contact Study in Adults ( http://jama.jamanetwork.com/article.aspx?articleid=359625 )
You wrote "Scott B Halstead also single handedly produced a research paper on a similar number of people (15) and found NO SHEDDING of rubella virus after this vaccine."
The abstract reads : " No male spouses had HI antibody eight weeks after administration of the vaccine to the women, or approximately five weeks after the expected period of pharyngeal virus shedding. Lack of spread of rubella vaccine virus among young married couples with close physical contact is further evidence for the low transmissibility of these viruses."
Does this deserve a retraction ? I am not sure.
Posted by: Fièvre | May 17, 2014 at 10:09 AM
"… Vaccines are essential but why force them on healthy babies just because ADULTS refuse the same vaccines!…."
***************
My child is disabled today, because be was poisoned by one or more of the vaccines 31 vaccines that he received before he was 21 months old.
To say that vaccines are essential, is the same as saying that poisons are essential.
There's no such thing as an essential poison .
Posted by: Barry | May 17, 2014 at 07:54 AM
Andrew Wakefield was not of course the only author of the 1998 Lancet Paper but a co-author with many other adult and very intelligent people.
Intelligent enough perhaps to bend with the need to vaccinate and destroy more than 1 per cent of the human population and maintain a profession, job, career et al. And damn the little children?
For a paper of such importance and relating simply the finding that many autism children had gut problems together with the methyl malonic acid finding never taken up seriously it also denied the MMR link which 8 out of 12 parents thought was the CAUSE of their childs autism.
The inquiries, recriminations etc dont fit in a single book but probably a set of encyclopedias and all for clinical report on 12 children taking very little time in comparison with the recriminations.
Scott B Halstead also single handedly produced a research paper on a similar number of people (15) and found NO SHEDDING of rubella virus after this vaccine.
This research paper is now known to be WRONG but is the basis on which known harm from rubella virus in causing a 1 000 fold increase in autism.
Rubella virus transmits from mothers breast milk to the child and is accepted FACT today.
While the Halstead paper remains unretracted but wrong and probably not flagged as wrong, we see the BIAIS in targetting medical researchers of HONOUR.
Today, Halstead is an eminent professor still in the vaccine arena and still supporting FAILED VACCINES.
Dengue vaccines DO NOT PROTECT as is accepted by all. One day they may even get a vaccine right too but dont count on it.
Interestingly, Halstead tells us this is because dengue virus is not simple like MMR.
If Halstead was fooled into thinking rubella is a simple virus then the discovery that it causes autism at a rate 1 000 times the normal rate is something he can live with but I cant.
Parents spotting decline to AUTISM after MMR may know what Halstead and the vaccine looby do not know and what to them is simple may actually have fooled them for a generation.
Vaccines are essential but why force them on healthy babies just because ADULTS refuse the same vaccines! (Hep B for example - if 20 year adults wont have them give 'em to the one day baby!)
Posted by: John Fryer | May 17, 2014 at 05:16 AM
I stepped on this : The clinical case report: a review of its merits and limitations http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC4001358/
Posted by: Fièvre | May 17, 2014 at 04:29 AM
I am of opinion that there is not just ONE Wakefield affair : there is a scientific controversy AND a journalitic/political/juridical controversy. They obviously interfer but can be tackled separately.
The point about Pr. Ian Booth seems central ( as Anne McElroy Dachel remarked). But I don't understand it clearly : would someone express it another time with other words ?
This Pr.Ian Booth is Ian W Booth, is he ? What has become of him ?
Lately there has been a controversy between the Lancet and the BMJ concerning the Tamiflu : does this debate shed some light on the' way the BMJ covered the wakefield affair ?
Posted by: Fièvre | May 17, 2014 at 03:49 AM
Jenny
Interesting question what did for Harris. I suppose if I swung 85 votes by my AoA polemics (and I certainly upset his friend Goldacre) it may have made the difference but actually his vote was on target in numerical terms. It may be that the Conservative candidate got out some evangelical Christian voters who would not otherwise have voted (religion not usually being an issue in elections on the UK mainland, but they were here). Also, interesting that the issue I highlighted - patient confidentiality - is now a significant issue in UK politics: still perhaps not significant enough.
PS Tim Kelsey, the former associate of Paul Nuki - who hired Deer - at the Sunday Times, is the man trying to sell off everybody's medical records, was also identified this week as the NHS's worst abuser of expenses having claimed £46,000 last year!
Posted by: John Stone | May 17, 2014 at 03:38 AM
Glax Britannicus - You are right. Evan Harris served as Liberal Democrat Member of Parliament (MP) for Oxford West and Abingdon from 1997 -2010, before becoming unseated by his disgruntled constituents in the 2010 General Election. He lost to a Conservative; the seat was previously considered safe.
I'm interested in your statement Harris was an 'honorary' member of the Labour Party. The Liberal Democrats might want to know this!
Posted by: Jenny Allan | May 17, 2014 at 01:12 AM
You're a Godsend. Thank you for your bravery. I hope you go down in history, being credited along with Dr. Wakefield, at being of the highest moral character, " giving to humanity even at the risk of being harmed by those who are immoral -- or rather they are just plain greedy at all costs to humanity."
Posted by: HeidiN | May 16, 2014 at 10:05 PM
I do believe Dr Harris was MP during the entire span of New Labour (of which he was an honorary member) 1997-2010.
Posted by: Glax Britannicus | May 16, 2014 at 08:07 PM
@ Anne Dachel
As a UK taxpayer I would be very concerned about any Government funding of any expert witnesses, providing evidence at the General Medical Council fitness to practice trial of Andrew Wakefield and his clinician colleagues, Profs Walker-Smith and Murch. This would actually be illegal under UK laws. The GMC is a fee funded regulatory body with charitable status. The latter provides tax and other advantages. The fees are paid by all registered doctors in the UK.
The GMC is supposed to be independent of Government interference, although the Wakefield case generated a great deal of UK Government sponsored hubris. You may remember Evan Harris, during his short career as a constituency MP, raising questions about Dr Wakefield's research in Parliament using parliamentary privilege. Harris got voted out of Parliament after only one term, but was subsequently a leading voice on the 'Hacked Off' movement, formed to lobby and influence Lord Leveson's Inquiry into UK Press standards after the Murdoch scandals. In Lord Leveson's 2000 page report Dr Wakefield is described as a 'rogue scientist'. Murdoch employee Rebecca Brooks, currently on trial, accused of allowing/encouraging vast amounts of phone hacking at the 'News of the World' was one of the judges which awarded Brian Deer his Press Award. Pulitzer Prize it wasn't!!
I'm afraid David Lewis has got mixed up about the funding and functions of the GMC, but he is spot on about the amount of UK Government 'facilitating' that went on, with the objective of destroying Andrew Wakefield and obliterating his research integrity.
Posted by: Jenny Allan | May 16, 2014 at 06:35 PM
For Billie Joe,
The link is embedded with the word "interview," a little hard to notice perhaps:
http://www.voiceamerica.com/episode/77540/science-for-sale-the-autism-war-and-the-vaccine-court
Posted by: Jeannette Bishop | May 16, 2014 at 05:04 PM
Thank you, Dr. Lewis, for investigating to such a thorough extent and speaking out about what has been happening to Dr. Wakefield and generally to the integrity of health and safety research.
Posted by: Jeannette Bishop | May 16, 2014 at 04:14 PM
can we hear the interview? link??
Posted by: Billie Joe | May 16, 2014 at 04:13 PM
In a 2009 article, Brian Deer makes the following statement: "Wakefield himself, however, stands by his results, insisting that a link between MMR and autism merits inquiry. The 12 other doctors whose names were attached to the Lancet paper, which was written by Wakefield, were not involved in preparing the data used."
The Lancet authors were not involved in preparing the data used in the Lancet paper? That's quite a stretch even by Deer's standards.
Posted by: Carol | May 16, 2014 at 01:51 PM
Thanks for this Teri.
In looking over what Dr. Lewis wrote,
http://www.ashotoftruth.org/blog/epa-microbiologist-dr-david-lewis-wrote-book-research-misconduct-then-throws-book-brian-deer
the most telling line for me was
". . . the government's lawyers instructed him to do that."
We've been led to believe that the government functions on our behalf and that there's oversight and protection and that the media is the watchdog over everything going on. It's just a façade. Everyone is bought. They just pretend they're not.
"If you want to sell a lie, get the press to sell it for you." From the movie, "Argo."
"The two most misguided notions held in America:
Out government wouldn't really do that to us,
If they did, they would tell us about it on TV." Found on my Facebook.
Anne Dachel, Media
Posted by: Anne McElroy Dachel | May 16, 2014 at 10:22 AM
Excellent article/interview. Thank you Dr. Lewis for being brave enough to speak out and write this book! The unfair, truly vicious attack on Dr. Wakefield was what prompted me to start speaking out at every opportunity, rather than stay silent around my work peers any longer. I am in the medical field, and am embarrassed to say, there were years where I did not have the guts to speak up in front of other professionals and face the ridicule (Now, I just do it anyway, and have more facts and figures to support my position). Highly credible people like you who speak out make such a difference. The world needs to know what is happening to our children and to the brave medical professionals who treat them. I look forward to the day that Dr. Wakefield is truly vindicated and Brian Deer exposed for his corruption. Sickening what has happened to Dr. Wakefield, being attacked by his own medical community in the prime of his career, for doing nothing but tell the truth. The pharmaceutical companies and government agencies are ruining true science. Our children deserve so much more. Time for things to change. Thank you for writing this book!
Posted by: Anne J. | May 16, 2014 at 08:59 AM